The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Does the cross matter?

Evangelical Universalism
#1

One thing that was crucial in my conversion was truly recognizing that I was destined to be separated from God, but that Christ died on the cross, carrying MY guilt, to open the door, through faith, to be made blameless and at peace (and in love) with Him.

Now that I’ve come to connect with universalism, I am beginning to wonder: what actually DID happen at the cross? If God had planned all along to reconcile us through repentance one way or another (in this life or the next), what was the point of the event of crucifixion? Was it just a clear-cut reminder that He loved us or a demonstration of sacrificial love as an example? Or was it, as I’ve believed for many years: an atonement for sin. Was it a decisive moment in the cosmos or just a helpful guide post?

The big thing that threw me for a loop was reading George MacDonald’s unspoken sermon called “Justice.” He aggressively repudiates the idea of a sinless person taking someone else’s guilt as just plain reprehensible. This guy is like a “universalist hero” and he doesn’t even believe in the atonement. Help!

Thanks for any insights,
Denver

#2

Hi Denver,

Here is how I look at it from the perspective of evangelical universalism. I was “separated from God, but that Christ died on the cross, carrying MY guilt, to open the door, through faith, to be made blameless and at peace (and in love) with Him”. The main difference from evangelical universalism and traditional Evangelicalism is that evangelical universalists believe that humans have chances of salvation past the grave. I suppose non-evangelical universalists will also chime in, but this is the a basic idea of evangelical universalism.

#3

The resurrection! He came to rescue us from death. People could repent until the cows come home, but if Christ had not taken on their sins, they would have remained dead.

‘These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised.’ Heb 11

#4

As it happens, I’m in the process of transcribing most of MacD’s theological work to the forum–I try to post an entry every day. His sermon on “Justice” is in Vol 3; I’m in the middle of transcribing the second sermon from vol 2.

To be more specific: MacD doesn’t repudiate the idea of a sinless person volunteering to be punished for a guilty person as reprehensible; on the contrary, he allows that such a person would be admirable even to worshipfulness.

Nor does he ‘not believe in the atonement’. He believes wholeheartedly in the atonement. He rejects, in that sermon, one particular theory about what the atonement means. Though he ironically points out that he can explain this distinction all day long and people will still go away saying that “he doesn’t believe in the atonement!” :wink:

And what he considers reprehensible is not that a sinless person should volunteer to be punished for a guilty person, but that an authority would accept the mere suffering of anyone, much moreso a person innocent of any wrongdoing, as a fulfillment of ‘justice’–while letting the guilty person go free, no less!

I’m not at the office now, so I’m a little handicapped in copy-pasting the relevant quotes from that sermon at the moment. But yes, GMacD thinks the cross matters; and (speaking as one of his chief exponents on this site) so do I. I think it matters so fundamentally that, paradoxically, I’m often unsure where to begin in talking about its importance!

Roughly in order of what I take to be ascending importance:

1.) as a simple visual symbol, its ability to appeal and communicate ideas is nearly unmatched.

2.) despite what a few European hyper-sceptics (wish? try to?) believe, the cross anchors our religion firmly in history. Someone who rejects the supernatural, or who doesn’t believe God would do something like raise a person (especially Jesus of Nazareth) from the dead, is going to understandably have a lot of trouble believing in the empty tomb. (We’d certainly have a lot of trouble trying to use that as a symbol for our religion!) But even most of the staunchest non-or-anti-Christians in the world can believe in the cross.

3.) again, despite those few aforementioned hyper-sceptics (who don’t even believe Jesus existed at all, and who think the historical claims of Christianity were invented sometime in the mid-2nd century on top of a purely mystical non-historical religion preceding it), the cross isn’t something that would have been very likely to have been invented (even as a purely mystical non-historical symbol!) in the middle of a Roman Empire that crucified rebels against the Empire and which was already willing to do that to Christians for following Jesus in preference to the Emperor. Similarly, whenever I see slightly-less-hyper sceptics trying to claim that Christians invented the tomb burial (and Joseph of Arimathea) in order to avoid the scandal of Jesus having been buried with common criminals in a shallow grave to be eaten by scavengers, I really just have to laugh–it’s like those people have no idea that the cross itself (with Jesus being “reckoned with the transgressors”) was already significantly more scandalous than an unclean and dishonored burial would ever be!

So far I’ve only been talking about historical importances. The mention of being reckoned with transgressors introduces religious importances. So:

4.) Jesus shows on the cross, just as clearly as anyone could want, that God is willing to accept and reward actions with good intentions, even if those actions seem far too puny for the comfort of people who are primarily interested in Christianity-ity. :wink: The thief (or rebel brigand) on the cross asks only that Jesus will remember him when Jesus comes into His kingdom. He doesn’t even call Jesus ‘Lord’. There’s a good chance, based on harmonization of sources, that the brigand was only trying to humor a man he thought was crazy–but a harmless crazy who didn’t deserve to be there, unlike himself. He gives all of the little he is able; Jesus gives all that He can give in return. (The result being that today theologians and hymn-writers and preachers are in the habit of trying to imagine that the rebel really had a sufficiently detailed “saving faith”! Feh. The rebel didn’t even ask to be saved; he only asked that Jesus would remember him kindly.)

5.) “Father, forgive them–FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO!” Jesus readily excuses, just like He promised He would, those who comit the worst imaginable blasphemies against Him, thinking they are doing what should be rightly done.

6.) the cross shows that God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is willing to go the furtherest distance, beyond all human expectation, to reach and save His own enemies. (You may have noticed a thread or two detailing how the words we translate “propitiate” and “atone/reconcile”, and cognates, are actually used in the NT. It’s always about God acting to save us, and even to incline us to smile upon Him. It’s never about God having to be atoned or even propitiated. In a total reversal of usual expectations outside Christianity, it’s always about God atoning and even propitiating us.)

7.) the cross shows that God sacrifices Himself (as the Son) for our sake. (And not only as the Son; where one Person is in operation, all Persons are in operation. The Son shows us the Father and does only what He sees the Father doing.)

8.) the cross shows us what happens when we sin against God: in effect we murder God. But it also shows that this doesn’t happen to God unwillingly or by surprise, or even by any power of our own. God submits to that passion voluntarily, for our sakes; and not only voluntarily, but authoritatively. “I have authority to set down My life, and I have authority to take it up again. No one takes My life from Me; I give it freely!”

9.) the cross shows us that God comes to us, not to be served, but to serve. It shows us that our natural expectations of authority are actually backward: we naturally expect, as an inference from natural behavior, that the highest authority is the authority to be served. But God shows us that the highest authority is the authority to serve. (God has the authority to be served, too, but that isn’t even His own highest authority. The reason why it sounds so horribly daring to suggest that we actually have authority from God to be served by God, is because we naturally expect being served to be the highest authority. But it isn’t. It’s the lesser authority.)

10.) by the cross, God testifies to us that He, even He Himself, voluntarily suffers along with the innocent when they are unjustly treated.

11.) by the cross, God testifies to us that He, even He Himself, voluntarily suffers along with the guilty, when they are justly punished!

12.) by the cross, God demonstrates and enacts the humility of His own true character.

13.) by the cross, God enacts in history, where it can be seen and testified to ever afterward as such a truth, the eternal self-sacrifice of His own action (the Son, the second Person of God, ever-begotten by the Father, the Lamb upon the throne) for the sake of all creation, the whole ‘kosmos’. For the Lamb is sacrificed from the beginning of all created reality, as the very ground of our existence.

14.) by the cross, God enacts in history, where it can be seen and testified to ever afterward as such a truth, the eternal self-sacrifice of the Son for the sake of the Father, as the very self-existence of the Godhead, upon which all reality depends for existence.

15.) by the cross, God enacts in history, where it can be seen and testified to ever afterward as such a truth, the eternal faithfulness of the Father to all of creation, including to the Son. (As I have noted previously often before, the Son quotes a Psalm where the whole point is that God is actually expected to have not abandoned the one who is suffering.)

16.) by the cross, God shows that He shares in the disciplining of His creation so that we may trust Him and His intentions toward us.

17.) by the cross, God shows both His concern for even our flesh, and also the lordship of the Spirit over the flesh.

18.) by the cross, God once and for all demonstrates that no temptation, no rebellion, will induce God to act to fulfill un-righteousness, to fulfill non-fair-togetherness: for the Son does not rebel against the Father and the Father does not abandon the Son.

19.) by the cross, even a demon has a chance of seeing and learning: if you finally succeed in killing God, and you still don’t win, you might as well give up and come home!!!

20.) by the cross, as by the symbol of baptism, God demonstrates the resolve of His heart to send away sin, and to fulfill all righteousness!!!

He shall never give up; He shall go the farthest distance in love; so that all things–all things I say, whether in the heavens or in the earth–shall be reconciled to Him!!!

He shall draw us all to Himself, by being lifted up for our sake–on the cross!

(For there is none that may come to Him except those whom the Father has given to Him; and the Father has given all things into His hand.)

It is possible that some other things may occur to me, also worth mentioning. The cross enacts and signifies a lot of unspeakably important things. :slight_smile:

(PS: please note that, when I discuss the religious importance of the cross, I usually talk about two things at once: what God eternally does, and is; and the enaction of this on the cross. God’s sacrifice there is unique because of Who and What He uniquely is. He does not do something there that is uniquely new in itself; despite what many theologians have thought afterward. What is uniquely new is that we ourselves can see it, whereas normally it is hidden from our sight. Thus even decades afterward, John the Evangelist can write in the present tense of our seeing what the Son reveals in the triumph of the cross.)

#5

Nonsense. Our anger at Him needed propitiating? ‘Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness.’ Without the atoning and propitiation of Divine Justice, we would remain dead and justly so - the ordinances and decree against us would still stand. Your argument continues to have God saying, ‘Aw shucks, I never really meant that ‘law and sin and death’ against you stuff anyway. I’m too nice for that.’

Even Islam can grab hold of the ‘example’ thingie. You’re a viper for reducing Christ to that. You claim repentance - repent of that thinking!

You continue to talk as though Christ didn’t actually bear the sins of world; and by that, wasn’t actually guilty and wasn’t justly punished with death. The truth is in His mission statement - He came to set the captives free. ‘Examples’ can’t save us from death - blood sacrifice and atonement can. My redeemer is alive. Our resurrection was PAID for. Try and think BIG, Jason, though I know this is really going to screw up your book sales.

Horse hockey! The LAST sacrifice is not unique??? The last game at the old Yankee Stadium is more unique than Christ? Please, Jason, as you rewrite Christianity include an asterisk on your statements - something to the effect of - ‘*Jason thinks this or that and writes profusely to cover the fact that he is unorthodox.’ Meanwhile the ‘many theologians’ admire your snow-job…and the theologically challenged put money in your account. It’s a marvel to watch.

#6

Denver, I believe you raise appropriate questions, and I’m with Jason in that most of us afffirm it as an “atonement for sin,” but the concrete meaning of that term is ambiguous and much debated in Christian tradition. As Jason alluded, there is already much discussion of such questions, especially in the threads under “soteriology.” I raised questions in one paper I offered on penal substitution, and engaged in dialogue with many, especially James and Ran Ran. But the most detailed look at some of the Biblical terms at issue are offered by Jason’s threads there. I have a studied view of many aspects of the atonement controversies, but must allow than I’m skeptical of any including myself who think they fully grasp all the dynamics of the marvelous drama of grace that we witness at the cross. But here’s to each of us continuing to grow in our comprehension and appreciation of its’ power and meaning.

#7

Denver,
I’ve been working on the same question–I know the cross is of great importance, but I’m pretty sure it’s not what I used to think it was. You wrote that Christ bore our guilt on the cross, and that’s what I used to think too. But as far as I know, those words are never used in scripture.

In the OT it is clear that ‘guilt’ belongs only to the guilty party:
Eze 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

It says that Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross, that he died for us, that by his death we are justified, that we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son, that he makes peace by his blood. I don’t feel I have a good hold on what it all means–I’m still trying to get rid of the old thinking I had which still interferes with my ability to see clearly what these things mean.

In MacDonald’s book ‘What’s Mine’s Mine’, one of his characters says to another, “…I do not believe what you mean by the atonement; what God means by it, I desire to accept…” If you’re not familiar with the book, you can read the chaper here:
online-literature.com/view.php/whats-mine/15?term=atonement I think you might find it helpful in understanding MacDonald’s positon.

Sonia

#8

Oh, please. Redefinition of terms is the oldest trick in the book. Calvinists grow up with smoke and mirrors to justify the indefensible position they hold. ‘All’ means ‘some’ and atonement means whatever they want it to mean. The devil is in the details, while common sense tells you that Christ did something you can’t do. Suffering and dying? Millions of people have done that. Redemption is another story.

I realize these fora have turned into Jason’s pulpit. But he’s wrong, dead wrong and you guys need to stop acting like deer in Greek headlights. No amount of e-ink he pours out can mask his fundamental errors.

#9

Ranran you cry for justice. Well here it is. I am afraid the “free wiilies” won’t like this one much either, as they come right up to God’s soverignty but hold out with the idea salvation by grace cannot be so pure. They will continue to laud their freedom until God unveils to them their total futility … such is the “vanity of man” (Rom8:20)

Brother, God does not blame man but instead, takes the blame Himself, in Christ Jesus. It is our carnal mind, which is at enmity with God, that imagines our guilt.

He was despised and rejected by people. He was a man of sorrows, familiar with suffering. He was despised like one from whom people turn their faces, and we didn’t consider him to be worth anything. Is 53:3

The veil had been rent and Jesus had played out the drama of the innocent scapegoat right before our very eyes. Here is the holiest, purest, most spotless man that ever lived. What does the world do?
Blister Him,
Blast Him,
Bruise Him. *

He was the outcast of all outcasts; this Son of God. This Jesus, who opened not His mouth, took upon Himself the role of the despised scapegoat as people kicked Him, mocked Him, reviled Him, spat upon Him and finally killed Him.

Through the ages this world has known a thousand Gods, but there is only One that came to rescue man as an innocent scapegoat. As a scapegoat, He came, to carry away all of man’s abuse, all of man’s angst and the whole of the burden of man’s sin. For Love’s sake, the Creator became an outcast within His own creation. Surely, only by grace and on bended knee, might we ever even begin to fathom this!

And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. Isaiah 25:7

God, in Christ Jesus, stooped and became man’s scapegoat. By His atonement, He not only becomes our scapegoat but He says, “I am responsible, blame Me.” As always a paradox in the Kingdom; here the blameless One carries the blame. And while Jesus carries away from us the blame, He brings to us in return, justification. salvation, sanctification and resurrection. By and through His justifying, saving, sanctifying, resurecting life we are delivered from self blame and condemnation wrought by the law of sin and death. This is the “hope” birthed even before the foundations. Even before the world was created, Christ died to give forth to us His Life. As we realize this we return to Paradise, our home.

“Creation was subjected to frustration but not by its own choice. The one who subjected it to frustration did so in the hope.” Rom 8:20

In summation, it is God that placed man in sinful flesh, this sinful flesh that ever frustrates man. He is responsible for the purpose and plan to frustrate and humble humanity by the same. Owning up to this, God, through the demonstration of Christ Jesus suffering the cross, not only takes the blame but in addition He also humbles Himself and suffers as, for and with you and me.

Jesus suffers as man … Jesus suffered for man … Jesus sufferd with man … Jesus even suffers man today … For the cross and the love of God know no bounds of time nor space.

Oh, what a Saviour, what a Worthy Priest, what a Servant King , is our God in Chrsit and our Kinsman Redeemer!

John

*(Ravenhill)

#10

At times discussions on this forum seem to get unpleasantly heated these days!
For what its worth, the best paper I have read on atonement for many years is by Derek Flood and can be found at sharktacos.com/God/cross_intro.shtml. He compares and contrasts the Penal Substitution understanding of the cross with the Christus Victor understanding which was the prevailing view in the early church. It is an insightful and pastorally sensitive paper and has helped me a great deal.

#11

Revdrew61,
Strange you should mention Derek Flood’s essay. I discovered it yesterday shortly after listing my post. I was on wikipedia’s page on MacDonald, saw a mention of “Christus Victor,” and clicked on it. I had never heard of the concept before. I followed the external link and it took me to the paper you mentioned. I have hardly read all of it, but a short skim helped me understand more of the idea that some view the atonement as a breaking of the powers of evil on us by the cross.

#12

Denver,

I’m glad you found it! I also found it ‘by accident’. It repays patient, prayerful reading. CV is about Christ’s victory over sin and death, bringing healing and freedom - and not just for a few individuals who have chanced upon correct doctrinal beliefs. It is a victory of grace and far more comprehensive than a mere legal aquittal. Here’s a quote which touched me:-

“And exactly this is the problem: while the Satisfaction-Doctrine *(Penal Substitution)*attempts to take sin seriously, in the end it fails to take it seriously enough because it deals with sin through a legal system instead of through grace. Because of its legal paradigm it only deals superficially with sin and can do nothing to really reform it inwardly. Punishment does not reform, it hardens. Compassion is what reforms a heart.”

I’d be interested in what you think after you’ve read the whole thing.

Peace, Andrew

#13

Denver,

I was going to point out (having forgotten to do so) that there are some universalists, including on this board, who do think much more highly of various penal substitution theories, than MacD did (or than I do). But that seems to have been mentioned already, fortunately. :slight_smile:

Revdrew,

I appreciate the thought; and the mods and admins will take it under advisement. Everyone has the right (and I would say the responsibility, too) to make the best case they can, of course. Though I would think this thread falls, perhaps, more into the category of ‘everyone answer Den to the best of their ability as they see fit’, rather than specifically counter-critiquing one another.

Ran,

I will probably ask other mods and admins to vote on whether your longest flagged comment should be ported over to another thread (the one on the propitiation, perhaps, or the thread prior to that one; whichever one seems to make the most topical sense) with a note that it came originally from this thread for context (and with a note here about where the comment was moved to; each note with appropriate links).

Also, I’m flattered (in a way) that you think I’m making money off selling “books” (plural); but the truth of the matter is that I only have one book for sale anywhere (and have never once claimed otherwise), and (as you might have discovered had you bothered) that one book for sale doesn’t have much if anything to do with the particular topics you seem to imagine it does. (Which, hey, for all I know, might be why it has sold relatively few copies! :laughing: More likely, it’s because it’s a hardback released by a new self-publishing author with not much money to spend on marketing, and featuring an unusual narrative construction that takes some difficulty getting used to, especially in the first 50 pages.)

If you have any more accurate information on the success of the “sales” of my “books”, please: be more detailed!–I assure you, I want to know! :laughing:

Meanwhile, I think we should focus with discussing the best understandings we have with Denver, pursuant to the thread’s topic, rather than critiquing one another in this particular thread. (That goes for anyone wanting to pick on Ran’s large post of complaints, too–I recommend waiting until the mods and admins decide whether to keep it here or move it to another more applicable thread.)

#14

I hope I don’t derail the thread…too much, but I must make comment on the above. Several weeks ago, I taught a bible study on this very issue concerning the pentinent thief and why his constitutes saving grace. Several observations, if I may:

  1. The story is in GosLuke, but as a matter of background, we have to consider the other Gospels, none of which have this account. Instead, all we hear is that there were two thieves crucified with Christ (and wrap that around you theological head for a minute), and that they both railed and mocked at Jesus.

  2. So when we get to GosLuke, we have an apparent change of heart in one of the thieves. The question then becomes, why? I believe two things. Number one is something Jesus said had an effect on the man, namely, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. Now, most commonly it is taught that this phrase is mostly directed to Jesus executioners and tormentors and mockers on the ground, but could it be that a broader application extended toward he that was likewise a mocker hanging beside Jesus? Perhaps this man realized that he doesn’t know what he’s doing, yet Christ is forgiving him also. And so he is taken aback.

  3. Meanwhile, the other thief continues to rail, saying, “If though be Christ, save thyself and us.” And this brings a sharp rebuke from the pentinent thief, who now recognizes Jesus’ innocence. Innocence of what? Well, Jesus is being crucified because of blasphemy (to the Jews) and setting himself above Caesar (to the Romans). The thief must have seen the sign: The King of the Jews. This is number two. Therefore, in stating His innocence, he is agreeing that what he is accused of is true of Jesus, that He is the King of the Jews.

  4. And so now, he turns to Christ with the famous statement, “Lord, remember me thou comest into thy kingdom.” Let’s unravel the significance of this statement. In the first place, he calls him ‘Lord’ (Jason, I don’t know what you meant saying he didn’t do so, but it is right there). I realize the term ‘lord’ has varying significance depending on it’s usage, but at the very least, the thief acknowledges Jesus’ superiority. Secondly, he asks Jesus to remember him. This means empirically that the thief believes that Jesus will somehow survive the grave. A dead man has no memory (Eccl. 9:5). (and one may even argue that the term ‘remember’ might even carry the connotation of Jesus giving consideration of the thief when He gets there. Sort of like, “Remember to call me when you get to Miami”, would obviously require the person to actually call and not just to remember to call). Thirdly, that the Jesus will ‘comest’, not goest to His kingdom, that is the kingdom will be established right there on earth in the future. And fourthly, that there is a Kingdom in which Jesus will rule, which makes the ‘Lord’ part even more significant.

#15

I think my comments pertain directly to the thread’s question. The brunt of the comments seems to appeal to an emotional response as being the purpose of the crucifixion. Whereas, I tend to consider the cross in terms of accomplishment and the changes it brought. The Law and its ordinances against man got nailed to the cross - men didn’t accomplish that.

If I am to give a reason for my hope, it certainly doesn’t reside with something I did. That’s strange talk to those who think they have something to add to the atonement (besides their sin).

#16

I thought they were fine comments. :slight_smile: Though mainly I hope they help Denver in addressing his question.

(um… you are a ‘he’, right, Den? I just realized I don’t remember, and the name isn’t necessarily masculine. :mrgreen: )

To be specific, GosMatt (27:44) and GosMark (15:32) says the rebels, plural, or (in GosMark) those (plural) who were crucified with Him (identified as lestes earlier), were reproaching Jesus with the same blasphemy {eblasphe_moun, blaspheming} or scoffing {empaizontes, in-hitting} as the chief priests, scribes and elders are reported as doing in the preceding verses. The verb {o_neidizon} means basically to speak against. It’s a metaphorical transition of the Greek verb form of their word for ‘name’ (which, incidentally, is also where we get the English word ‘name’); if we said someone was speaking against someone else by calling them names, that’s the same gist.

GosLuke never reports the second rebel {lestes} speaking against Christ. But yes, a harmonization of the sources would indicate that at some point he was doing so somehow. (The “Father forgive them” always tends to come some time earlier, at the initial crucifixion; but that kindness from Christ may very well have been on the mind of the penitent rebel.)

GosJohn doesn’t report either rebel doing anything either way; only that they were there.

Just clarifying the textual details for reference sake. :slight_smile:

I am porting over my discussion of the use of “Lord” by the penitent thief (or, more specifically, a rebel-bandit), and whether it appears in the text, to a different thread (though I kept it here temporarily until I could arrange a new tomb for it :mrgreen: ); which is now here in the Bibliology section.

#17

Yes, Derek Flood’s writing is great especially as he capsulizes Rene’ Gerard’s theory of mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism. So glad some have discovered this treasure.

May God bless you with the reading of Edward Shilito’s poem, “Jesus of the Scars”, penned as he found himself sickened by the tragedy of suffering and death in the “great war”. As an epilogue, are the thoughts of Olsen and Piper. I took the liberty to enlarge the latter by removing one word, “Calvinism” and then adding a phrase.

Oh, to know His cross is our cross in thousand ways. And but that Calvin, might himself, have added “all men” to the determinism of God. For God is determined to see “all men saved.” Thank God, we have and share the greater hope and the real “Good News!”

Jesus of the Scars

If we have never sought, we seek Thee now;
Thine eyes burn through the dark, our only stars;
We must have sight of thorn-pricks on Thy brow,
We must have Thee, O Jesus of the Scars.

The heavens frighten us; they are too calm;
In all the universe we have no place.
Our wounds are hurting us; where is the balm?
Lord Jesus, by Thy Scars, we claim Thy grace.

If, when the doors are shut, Thou drawest near,
Only reveal those hands, that side of Thine;
We know to-day what wounds are, have no fear,
Show us Thy Scars, we know the countersign.

The other gods were strong; but Thou wast weak;
They rode, but Thou didst stumble to a throne;
But to our wounds only God’s wounds can speak,
And not a god has wounds, but Thou alone.

Our belief in God’s sovereignty does not offer a “seemingly simple answer to the problem of evil.” Rather, it bows in humility to what God has revealed. And it gazes with faith and hope at the zenith of that revelation in the crucified Savior. When understanding fails and questions remain, we look at the Jesus of the scars and remember that our God–the only God there is–was wounded for us, and we let His wounds speak to ours.

#18

They do topically, to some extent; but you clearly aren’t discussing the issue with Denver anymore in that comment. You’re continuing a dialogue you and I been having already in at least two threads. (The ad hom name-calling parts are certainly not discussing the issue with Denver either, and are very far from pertaining directly to his questions. :wink: )

I’m trying to keep this thread from transforming into a technical discussion (not to say a highly personal diatribe) between two other people that’s already being held elsewhere by those same people. I think the best way is to move that continuation back over to where it was continuing from, with links to follow for interested readers. (Which is why, for similar reasons–even though we aren’t continuing a previous discussion, much less a diatribe, from elsewhere–I will be moving my comments on whether “Lord” was original to the text in the penitent rebel’s plea, to another thread myself, later today, with links for interested readers to follow either direction.)

If the other mods/admins vote otherwise, though, it can stay (with Denver’s permission being paramount).

To clarify for Denver’s sake (at least), just in case he didn’t notice either: I obviously consider the theological purpose of the crucifixion to be the supreme enaction, in relation to the sin of derivative creatures, of what God is always eternally doing in regard to, with, and for sinners.

That God also seeks responses of faith from sinners, by means of the cross, seems clearly enough predicated in much scriptural testimony. That such responses will be emotional is far from unnatural, all things considered, but emotional responses weren’t what I primarily expected (nor presented) God to be seeking from sinners. Relational responses, yes. Emotional, not the primary thing being sought.

(At the same time, there’s a lot of scriptural language in regard to salvation which involves God freely giving joy to those He forgives and saves. So the emotional part shouldn’t be just discarded either.)

#19

Since we discuss the workings of the cross, I could not help but share my morning devotional by Chip Brogden. This may help Denver see the enormity and centrality of the cross working within our lives day in day out. Oh, how I love the cross as I learn to shelter in His side.

“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Galatians 6:14).

Unfortunately, salvation as preached today results not in death, but in “swooning”. There is an ecstatic joy and the “near death experience” of a token surrender, but it is not real death. The convert merely changes his conduct, cries a few tears, yet he still lives. The outward deportment may be different, but he has not died. He commences to follow the Lord and fill his life with spiritual activity, but his many failures and shortcomings prove something is missing in his experience. What is it?

He knows the Cross only as something Jesus died on for him. The Cross does not represent his own death, but his Lord’s death. It is seldom presented as anything other than the means of atonement and forgiveness of sins. Few realize it is the means by which we enter, as well as live, the Christian life.

#20

:blush: Sorry double posted. Thankyou Jason.